Michał Wojnowski (Rzeszów)
Periodic revival or continuation
of the ancient Military Tradition?
another Look at the Question
of the KaTÁFraKToi in the Byzantine army
1The historiography of the 20th century used to pay much attention to the ap-pearance of heavily armoured cavalry as a symptom of transition from the an-cient world to Middle Ages2. There are however still some problems concerning the character of the different kinds of armoured cavalry, its genesis and continu-ity in the Early Byzantine period. Ancient written sources indicate that the so-called catafracti (Gr. katáfraktoi), catafractarii (Gr. katafraktárioi) and clibanarii (Gr.
klibabárioi), the ancient heavy armoured cavalry, were present on the battlefields
of the ancient world from the Hellenistic period to the Late Antiquity. According to Greek and Roman writers, the catafracti and clibanarii were employed by the Parthians; catafracti formed a part of the Seleucid cavalry; detachments of catafracti
1 This study constitute an enhanced version of my earlier text printed in Polish Katáfraktoi
– ciężkozbrojna jazda Cesarstwa Bizantyńskiego jako kontynuacja antycznych catafracti i clibanarii, ZNUJ
132, 2005, p. 7–21, and contains a results of my further research concerning the question of heavy armoured cavalry in Byzantium. I need to express my gratefulness to Patryk Skupniewicz for sharing his library with me.
2 See e.g. E. Darkó, Le rôle des peuples nomades cavaliers dans la transformation de l’Empire romain aux
premiers siècles du moyen âge, B 18, 1948, p. 85–97; L. White, Medieval Technology and Social Change,
Oxford 1962, p. 1–38; B. Bachrach, The Rise of Armorican Chivalry, TC 10, 1967, p. 166–171; idem,
Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup and Feudalism, SMRH7, 1970, p. 47–75; L. White,
The Crusades and the Technological Thrust of the West, [in:] War, Technology and Society in the Middle East,
ed. V.J. Parry, M.E. Yapp, London 1975, p. 98–99; J. Bérenger, L’influence des peuples de la steppe (Huns,
Mongols, Tartares) sur la conception européene de la guerre de mouvement et l’emploi de la cavalerie (Ve–XVIIe siècle), RIHM 49, 1980, p. 33–50; F. Cardini, Alle radici della cavalleria medievale, Firenze 1981, passim;
J. Flori, L’ideologie du glaive . Préhistoire de la chevalerie, Geneve 1983, passim; idem, Les origines de la
chevalerie, CCM 27, 1984, p. 359–365; B. Bachrach, Caballus and Caballarius in Medieval Warfare, [in:] The Study of Chivalry: Resources and Approaches, ed. H. Chickering, T.H. Seiler, Kalamazoo 1988,
p. 173–211; A.M. Хазанов, Роль кочевников евразийских степей в истории военного искусства, [in:] Роль номадов евразийских степей в развитии мирового военного искусства . Научные чтения памяти Н .Э . Масанова: cборник материалов международной научной конференции 22–25 Апреля 2010 года,
and clibanarii served in the Roman army and they were also present in Sasanian Persia and Armenia3.
One should draw attention to the fact, that the relationship between catafracti and clibanarii is not clear. For example, the words clibanarius/clibanarii and
cata-fractus/catafracti referring both to the Persian and Roman heavy-armoured
horse-men, appeared in Roman sources recording events that took place in the 3rd and 4th century A.D. In this case the terms mentioned above were used interchangeably4. The problem is whether the catafracti and clibanarii were a Parthian, Persian or Ro-man unit defined by two names, or whether they represented two types of heavy cavalry. If the second possibility is true, the question arises what did the difference consist in5.
No thesis based on the assumption that the existence of the two names is due to the difference in rider’s armour, weapon and equestrian equipment has been accepted so far. A contrary opinion, that there was no difference between those two formations, has been rejected as well. It was the equipment that used to be regarded as the main element which made it possible to distinguished the catafracti
3 D.T. Potts, Cataphractus and kāmāndar: Some Thoughts on the Dynamic Evolution of Heavy Cavalry and
Mounted Archers in Iran and Central Asia, BAI 21, 2012, p. 149–158; W.W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments, Cambridge 1930, p. 73–74; B. Bar-Kochva, The Seleucid Army . Organization and Tac-tics in the Great Campaigns, Cambridge 1976, p. 40, 42, 67, 74–75; G.A. Košelenko, Les cavaliers parthes . Aspects de la structure sociale de la Parthie, DHA 6, 1980, p. 177–179; M. Mielczarek, Die parthische Pan-zerreiterei bei Carrhae . Aus den Studien über Plutarchus, Crassus XXIV–XXVII, FAH 4, 1988, p. 31–38; idem, Demonstracja wojskowa w Dafne w 166 r . p .n .e . a wyprawa Antiocha III Epifanesa na Wschód, AUL.FH 44,
1992, p. 3–12; M.P. Speidel, Riding for Caesar . The Roman Emperors’ Horse Guards, London 1994, p. 154; В.П. Никоноров, К вопросу о парфянской тактике (на примере битвы при Каррах), [in:] Военное дело и средневековая археология Центральной Азии, ed. А.И. Мартынов et al., Кемерово 1995, p. 53–61;
M. Mielczarek, Cataphracts – a Parthian Element in the Seleucid Art of War, [in:] Ancient Iran and the
Medi-terranean World . Electrum . Studies in Ancient History‚ ed. E. Dąbrowa, Cracow 1998, p. 101–105; В.П. Н и-коноров, К вопросу о парфянском наследии в сасанидском Иране: военное дело, [in:] Центральная Азия от Ахеменидов до Тимуридов: археология, история, этнология, культура . Материалы международной научной конференции, посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения Александра Марковича Беленицкого (Санкт-Петербург, 2–5 Hоября 2004 года), ed. idem, Санкт-Петербург 2005, p. 142–143; Μ.Я. О ль-брихт, К вопросу о происхождении конницы катафрактов в Иранеи и Средней Азии, [in:] Роль нома-дов . . ., p. 66–85; В.П. Никоноров, К вопросу о вкладе кочевников Центральной Азии в военное дело античной цивилизации [in:] Роль номадов . . ., p. 46–47.
4 See e.g. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt, XVI, 10, 8; XIX, 7, 4; XXIV, 6, 8, ed. et
trans. J.C. Rolfe, London 1935 (cetera: Ammianus Marcellinus). On Ammianus’ military qualifi-cation see: G.A. Crump, Ammianus Marcellinus as a Military Historian, Wiesbaden 1975; N.J.E. Austin,
Ammianus on Warfare: An Investigation into Ammianus’ Military Knowledge, Brussels 1979; F. Trombley, Ammianus Marcellinus and Fourth-Century Warfare: a Protector’s Approach to Historical Narrative, [in:] The Late Roman World and Its Historian . Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus, ed. J.W. Drijvers, D. Hunt,
New York 1999, p. 16–27; D. den Hengst, Preparing the Reader for War: Ammianus’ Digression on Siege
Engines, [in:] The Late Roman World . . ., p. 27–37.
5 M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanarii . Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient
from the clibanarii and to discover the similarities and differences between the two types of the cavalry. The question of the tactics deployed by the catafracti and
cliba-narii was passed over6.
A completely different methodological approach was proposed by a Polish scholar Mariusz Mielczarek. The solution worked out in his study Cataphracti and
clibanarii . Studies on the Heavy Armored Cavalry of the Ancient World differs from those
put forward usually by scholars dealing with the catafracti and clibanarii. According to him, the basic criterion of the catafracti and clibanarii distinction was not based on an analysis of the arms and armour used but rather on an attempt to determine the tactics characteristic of the both kinds of heavy armoured cavalry7.
M. Mielczarek supposes, that the catafracti were a heavy armoured cavalry (this term derives from the Greek verb katafrássō – ‘to enclose, wall up, to cover with ar-mour’) fighting in a deployed column order composed of a number of horsemen lines. The spear had been for a long time their main offensive weapon, held along the horse’s flanks and freely wielded. The battle column order of the horsemen of this type was particularly effective against a deep array consisting of infantrymen. It seems that the catafracti were the response given by the eastern horsemen to the Macedonian phalanx. Probably they were created as a type of cavalry which would be able to oppose heavy – armoured Macedonian infantry. Their protective armour underwent a development. It became gradually longer and it covered, as
6 Ibidem, p. 10–11, 89. Yet, modern studies on catafracti and clibanarii are focused mainly on their
panoply. See e.g. R.M. Rattenbury, An Ancient Armoured Force, CR 56, 1942, p. 113–116; L.A. Post,
Cataphracts in Curtius, ClaW 18, 1946, p. 40; B. Rubin, Die Entstehung der Kataphraktenreiterei im Lichte der chorezmischen Ausgrabungen, Hi 4, 1955, p. 264–283; J.W. Eadie, The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry, JRS 57, 1967, p. 161–173; A.M. Хазанов, Катафрактарии и их роль в истории военного искусства, ВДИ 1, 1968, p. 180–191; O. Gamber, Kataphrakten, Klibanarier, Normannenritter, JKSW
64, 1968, p. 7–44; А.К. Акишев, Костюм «золотого человека» и проблема катафрактария, [in:] Военное дело древних племен Сибири и Центральной Азии, ed. Ю.С. Худяков, Новосибирск 1981,
p. 54–65; J.M. Diethart, P. Dintsis, Die Leontoklibanarier . Versuch einer archäologisch-papyrologischen
Zusammenschau, [in:] Byzantios. Festschrift für Herbert Hunger zum 70 . Geburststag, ed. W. Hörandner,
J. Koder, O. Kresten, E. Trapp, Wien 1984, p. 67–79; M. Michalak, The Origins and Development of
Sassanian Heavy Cavalary, FO 24, 1987, p. 76–84; P. Bernard, Les nomades conquérants de l‘empire gréco-bactrien . Réflexions sur leur identité ethnique et culturelle, CRAI 131, 1987, p. 759–762; H. Von Gall, Das Reiterkampfbild in der iranischen und iranisch beeinflussten Kunst partischer und sassanidischer Zeit, Berlin
1990, passim; O. Harl, Die Kataphraktarier im römischen Heer: Panegyrik und Realität, JRGZM 43, 1996, p. 601–627; V.P. Nikonorov, Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii . Another Look at the Old Problem of
Their Identification, [in:] Military Archaeology: Weaponry and Warfare in the Historical and Social Perspective . Materials of the International Conference 2–5 September 1998, ed. G.V. Vilnibahov et al., Saint Petersburg
1998, p. 131–138, J.J.V. Sánchez, Los regimentos de catafractos y clibanarios en la tardo antigüedad, CLR. AC 16, 1999, p. 397–415; idem, Catafracti y clibanari romanos . El desarrollo de cuerpos a caballo entre
Occi-dente y Oriente, [in:] Boletín de la Academia de España en Roma 1999, Madrid 1999, p. 98–101; В.А. Д ми-триев, Всадники в сверкающей брони . Военное дело сасанидского Ирана и история римско-персидских воин, Санкт-Петербург 2008, p. 60–84.
much as possible, the rider’s body. This was followed by the development of horse’s caparison along the same lines8.
According to M. Mielczarek, the clibanarii deployed completely different tac-tics. The genesis of this term is uncertain. Similarly to catafracti, the clibanarii were heavy armoured horsemen, but they were used mainly against cavalry. As their main weapon they used a long spear held across the horse’s neck, with its point placed to the left from the horse’s head. Their main protective armour was a mail coat as well as additional coverings made of iron plates or scales. Due to the change in the use of the spear, carrying a shield became possible. Less attention was paid to the protection of the horse. Its metal caparison were replaced by the armour made of hardened leather or textile coverings reinforced by additional metal ele-ments. Their tactics were distinct from that of the catafracti. They fought in the wedge-column order or in a similar one, forming the wedge’s head. Further lines were composed of less heavy-armoured mounted archers9.
One cannot exclude the possibility that the same well trained horseman could function either as a catafractus or a clibanarius according to the tactics employed and there was no significant difference. He was a catafractus, when fighting in a col-umn order against infantry, and a clibanarius when he fought against mounted warriors, as one of the soldiers at the head of the wedge-column order. Probably this is a correct interpretation of the expression catafractus (catafractarius)
cliba-narius documented by an inscription from Bithynia, which dates from the 4th cen-tury A.D.10 The Notitia Dignitatum indicate that the difference between catafractarii and clibanarii in Roman army lay not necessary in their equipment and tactics but rather in the origin of the units. In this document we can observe that clibanarii, unlike catafractarii, were recruited in the East (e.g. equites primi clibanarii Parthi,
equites Persae clibanarii, equites secundi clibanarii Parthi, cuneus equitum secundorum clibanariorum Palmirenorum)11 .
8 Ibidem, p. 47–49, 90. On the origin of this term see F. Lammert, Κατάφρακτοι, [in:] RE, vol. X, 1920,
col. 2479; E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from B .C . 146 to A .D . 1100), New York 1900, p. 649; H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexikon, Oxford 1930, p. 920.
9 M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanarii . . ., p. 49–50, 90.
10 M.P. Speidel, Cataphractarii, clibanarii and the Rise of the Later Roman Mailed Cavalry . A Gravestone
from Claudiopolis in Bithynia, EA 4, 1984, p. 151–156; M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanarii . . .,
p. 50, 90. Vegetius’ account indicate that catafracti were deployed against cavalry as well as infantry. See Flavi Vegeti Renati Epitoma Rei Militaris, III, 23, rec. C. Lang, Leipzig 1885. On Vegetius’ military treatise see C. Zuckerman, Sur la date du traité militaire de Vègéce et son destinataire Valentinien II, SCIsr 13, 1994, p. 67–94; T.D. Barnes, The Date of Vegetius, Phoe 33, 1979, p. 254–257; B. Bachrach, The
Practical Use of Vegetius’ De re militari during the Early Middle Ages, [in:] idem, Warfare and Military Organi-zation in Pre-Crusade Europe, Aldershot 2002, p. 239–255; Ch. Allmand, The De Re Militari of Vegetius in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, [in:] Writing War . Medieval Literary Responses to Warfare, ed.
C. Saun-ders, F. Le Scaux, N. Thomas, Cambridge 2004, p. 15–29.
11 J.W. Eadie, op . cit ., p. 169–170; D. Hoffman, Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und Notitia
It should be remembered, that such cavalry constituted the elite of the army, and were, of course, extremely expensive to equip. Moreover, the service in
a cat-afracti or clibanarii unit required considerable skills and constant military and
equestrian practice, because the success of these formations on the battlefield de-pended on the discipline of horsemen who had to keep battle order. A breaking of the order could result in a disaster since a heavy armoured as well as an unhorsed warrior could easily be defeated by an infantryman or a mounted opponent12. It was for these reasons that only wealthy, experienced horsemen of long training were selected for that kind of service. A confirmation of this opinion can be found in a papyrus discovered in Egypt. According to this source a certain Serapion, who at the turn of the 4th/5th centuries, after having served ten years in another cavalry unit, joined the catafractarii and after twenty months became a commander
(decu-rio) of their detachment13.
The earliest information about catafracti in the Roman army is preserved from the times of the emperor Hadrian (117–138). An inscription of the prefect Marcus Agrippa discovered in Italy indicates the existence during the reign of this emperor of a detachment of heavy cavalry described as Ala Prima Gallorum et Pannoniorum
catafractata, which was stationed in Moesia Inferior14. The coming into being of that formation seems to be due to the experience gained during the Parthian war conducted by Trajan in 114–117. Its appearance might be linked with Hadrian’s military policy, who intended to remodel Roman cavalry on Sarmatian or rather Parthian pattern (as opposed to the Parthians, among the Sarmatian heavy cav-alry horse armour was not fully developed; usually it was restricted to scale or plate peytral covering the horse chest)15. According to his intention this cavalry should have been able to fight like the Parthian and Armenian heavy-armoured horsemen and mounted archers16. In the 3rd century A.D., the units of catafracti
D. Woods, The scholae palatinae and the Notitia Dignitatum, JRMES 7, 1996, p. 289–290; M. Heil, Perser
im Spätrömischen Dienst, [in:] Ērān ud Anērān . Studien zu den Beziehungen zwischen dem Sasanidenreich und der Mittelmeerwelt, ed. J. Wiesehöfer, Ph. Huyse, München 2006, p. 152–154.
12 M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanarii . . ., p. 50, 90; M.P. Speidel, Ancient Germanic Warriors .
Warrior Styles from Trajan’s Column to Icelandic Sagas, London 2004, p. 84–85, 142–143.
13 J.R. Rea, A Cavalryman’s Career, A .D . 384(?)–401, ZPE 56, 1984, p. 79–88; M. Mielczarek,
Cataphrac-ti and Clibanarii . . ., p. 79; C. Zuckerman, Le camp de Psōbthis/Sosteos et les catafractarii, ZPE 100, 1994,
p. 201. On the term catafractarii see V.P. Nikonorov, Cataphracti, Cataphractarii, Clibanarii…, p. 132.
14 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, XI, 5632; M.M. Roxan, W. Eck, A Diploma of Moesia Inferior: 125
Iun . 1, ZPE 116, 1997, p. 195–196.
15 A.M. Хазанов, Очерки военного дела сарматов, Москва 1971, p. 86–87; A.K. Nefedkin,
Sarma-tian Armour According to Narrative and Archaeological Data, [in:] Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer . The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages, ed. M. Mode,
J. Tubach, Wiesbaden 2006, p. 438; M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanarii . . ., p. 101.
16 M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanarii . . ., p. 73. See also A.N. Negin, Sarmatian cataphracti as
prototypes for Roman equites cataphractarii, JRMES 6, 1995, p. 65–75. See also S. James, The Impact of Steppe Peoples and the Partho-Sasanian World on the Development of Roman Military Equipment and Dress,
and clibanarii became more numerous in the Roman army. Probably it was linked with Gallienus’ intention to create of the mobile cavalry units17. Emperor Claudius II had at his disposal a detachment of 100 catafracti stationed in Dalmatia18, while Aurelian had 800 heavy-armoured horsemen19. Ammianus Marcellinus reports, that catafracti equites commanded by Julian, fought against the Alamanni in the battle of Argentorate in 357 A.D.20 They also took part in the emperor Valentinian I’s campaign against the Saxons21. According to Notitia Dignitatum, units of
cata-fracti, catafractarii and clibanarii were stationed all over the Roman Empire, while
their noticeable preponderance in the eastern provinces seems to prove that their concentration was connected with the Persian threat22.
There is a consensus among modern scholars that the chief element which dis-tinguished catafracti and clibanarii units from other types of cavalry was the com-plete armour of both the horse and rider. This is confirmed by the emperor Julian’s descriptions being similar in content to Ammianus Marcellinus’ accounts. The two authors compare the horsemen with sculptures and they mention both iron masks covering soldier faces, as well as the protection of the whole body and limbs made of segmented armour elements accompanied by a mail. The basic offensive weapon was a long, solid spear called contus/kontós23. There is a general agreement
1st to 3rd Centuries A .D ., [in:] Arms and Armour . . ., p. 357–392. It must be stress that giving the name of catafracti to heavy armoured Sarmatian cavalry and of other peoples of the East, where the presence
of heavy cavalry is confirmed, is very debatable. On this see A.M. Хазанов, Очерки…, p. 71–81;
T.M. KaPMoB, Погребения военной знати Западного Предкавказья и проблема происхождения конницы катафрактов у Cарматов, [in:] Центральная Азия от Ахеменидов до Тимуридов: археология, история, этнология, культура . Материалы международной научной конференции, посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения Александра Марковича Беленицкого (Санкт-Петербург, 2–5 Hоября 2004 года), ed. В.П. Никоноров, Санкт-Петербург 2005, p. 104–109; A.B. Симоненко, Сарматские всадники Северного Причерноморья, Cанкт-Петербург 2009, p. 245–251.
17 On military reform of the emperor Gallienus see: R. Grosse, Römische Militärgeschichte von
Galli-enus bis zum Beginn der byzantinischen Themenverfassung, Berlin 1920, p. 15; L. De Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, Leiden 1976, p. 26–30; B. Cambpell, The Army [in:] CAH, vol. XII, The Crisis of Empire A .D . 193–337, ed. A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, A. Cameron, Cambridge 2005, p. 115–116;
F.L. Sánchez, Virtus Probi: Payments for the Battle Cavalry during the Rule of Probus (A .D . 277–278), [in:]
The Impact of the Roman Army (200 B .C . – A .D . 476) . Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200 B .C . – A .D . 476) Capri, March 29 – April 2, 2005, ed. L. de Blois, E. Lo Cascio, Leiden–Boston 2007,
p. 563‒583; I. Mennen, Power and Status in the Roman Empire, A .D . 193–284, Leiden–Boston 2011, p. 193–240.
18 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, XXV, 16, 12–15, ed. E. Hohl, vol. II, Lipsiae 1965, p. 147 (cetera: SHA). 19 SHA, XXVI, 11, 18–19, vol. II, p. 157; M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanarii . . ., p. 75–76. 20 Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI, 2, 5; XVI, 12, 7; XVI, 12, 63.
21 Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVIII, 5, 6.
22 Cf. an. 11 above. On the development of the Roman heavy cavalry under Constantius and Julian,
see the important discussion in D. Hoffman, op . cit ., vol. I, Düsseldorf 1969, p. 265–279.
23 Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI, 10, 8; XXV, 1, 12; Julianus, Oratio I, 37d–38a, p. 96–98; Oratio II, 57c,
in the modern historiography that the Roman catafracti and clibanarii developed along the lines convergent at many points with those featuring the Parthian and Sasanian heavy-armoured horsemen24.
It should be stressed that there are no mentions of catafracti or clibanarii units from the second half of the 6th to the 10th century25. The last certain mention on the so called leontoklibanárioi appears in a Egyptian papyri from the year 546 A.D.26 It should be noted however that, in that period, heavy-armoured horsemen still existed in the Byzantine army, but they were not described as catafracti or clibanarii. These terms are not found in the Strategikon of Maurice, nor the works of Proco-pius, Agathias, Menander Protector, John Malalas and the other historiographical sources from the later period. It seems worth considering why did those terms disappear from the sources of the period?
Byzantine medium and heavy-armoured cavalry during the 6th and early 7th century is described by Procopius of Caesarea27 and, in particular, in the
J.W. Drijvers, D. den Hengst, H.C. Teitler, Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus
Marcel-linus XXV, Leiden–Boston 2005, p. 3, 16, 23–25, 60–63, 201. Descriptions given by the emperor Julian
and Ammianus Marcellinus are similar to the famous graffito from Dura Europos where we can observe heavy armoured horseman who is equipped with metal armour consisting of segmented elements and plates accompanied by a metal rings. See M.I. Rostovtzeff, Graffiti, [in:] The Excavations at Dura Europos
Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: Preliminary Report of Fourth Sea-son of Work, October 1930 – March 1931, ed. P.V.C. Baur, M.I. Rostovtzeff, A.R. Bellinger,New Haven 1933, p. 22; A.D.H. Bivar, Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier, DOP 26, 1972, p. 275, plate 5; J. Diethart, P. Dintsis, op . cit ., p. 74, plate 1; D. Nicolle, Sassanian Armies . The Iranian Empire Early
3rd to mid-7th Centuries A .D., Stockport 1996, p. 15; S. James, The Excavations at Dura Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters from 1928 to 1937 . Final Report: The Arms and Armor and Other Military Equipment, London 2004, p. 43, plate 13. This kind of armour was very popular
among the Persian heavy armoured riders. See P. Skupniewicz, Sasanian Plate Armour, FAH 19, 2006, p. 19–35. Probably this combined armour was adopted by the Romans: M.C. Bishop, Lorica Segmentata, vol. I, A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour, London 2002, p. 73–76; A. ArgÜÍn, Una cuestión
a de-bate: la lorica segmentata en las fronteras orientales del Imperio Romano, Gla 26, 2006, p. 105–117; M.C. Bishop,
J.C. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, London 2006, p. 190–193; А.Е. Негиh, К вопросу о защитном вооружении римских катафрактариев и клибанариев, [in:] Материа-лы IX чтений памяти профессора Николая Петровича Соколова: Тезисы докладов межвузовской научной конференции, Нижний Новгород, 29–30 октября 2004 г., Нижний Новгород 2004, р. 45–49.
24 E. Gabba, Sulle influenze reciproche degli ordinamenti militari dei Parti e dei Romani, [in:] Atti del
convegno sul tema: La Persia e il mondo Greco-romano, Roma 11–14 Aprile 1965, Roma 1966, p. 51–73;
J.C. Coulston, Roman, Parthian and Sassanid Tactical Development, [in:] The Defence of the Roman and
Byzantine East . Proceedings of the Colloquium Held at the University of Shiffield in April 1986, Part I, B .A .R . S297, ed. A.R. Hands, D.R. Walker, Oxford 1986, p. 59–75; J. Diethart, P. Dintsis, op . cit ., p. 74;
M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanarii . . ., p. 85.
25 E. McGeer, Kataphraktoi, [in:] ODB, vol. II, p. 1114; V.P. Nikonorov, Cataphracti, Cataphractarii,
Clibanarii . . ., p. 137.
26 J.M. Diethart, P. Dintsis, op . cit ., p. 80.
27 The literature on Procopius is vast. See e.g. B. Rubin, Prokopios von Kaisarea, Stuttgart 1954;
W.E. Kaegi, Procopius, the Military Historian, BF 15, 1990, p. 53–85; A. Cameron, Procopius and the
Strategikon28, whose precept suggest that the influence of the Avar warfare was at this time particularly powerful29. According to Strategikon, heavy-armoured horsemen (referred as zabátoi30, not as catafracti or clibanarii) were protected by long armour called zába intended to cover them down to the ankle31. The origin of this term was probably connected with eastern cultural and military influ-ences32. Moreover, they also possessed a mail hoods and neck-guards, segmented helmets (probably Spangenhelme)33. The author of the treatise states explicitly that much of this equipment was modeled on the Avar panoply, in particular the neck-guard (peritrachélion), the leather thong (loríon) attached to the mid-dle of the lance, the loose-fitting and decorated clothing and the horse armour consisted of iron or textile coverings. Cavalrymen also wore a fur coat or wide, thick felt garment (gounníon or noberoníkion) to protect them from the weather and the enemy’s arrows and other kinds of weapon34. They were also equipped
28 The question of authorship of the Strategikon is debatable. In modern literature there is
wide-spread opinion that this practical compendium for highest commanders was composed by emperor Maurice at the turn of the 6th/7th century. See F. Aussaresses, L’auteur du Strategicon, REA 8, 1906,
p. 23–39; A. Dain, J.A. de Foucault, Urbicius ou Mauricius?, REB 26, 1968, p. 123–136; A. Kambylis,
Textkritische Beiträge zum Strategikon des Maurikios, JÖB 25, 1976, p. 47–56; A. Kollautz, Das militär-wissenschaftlische Werk des sogennanten Maurikios, Βκα 5, 1987, p. 87–136; F.E. Shlosser, The Reign of the Emperor Maurikios (582–602) . A Reassessment, Athens 1994, p. 28–34; В. Кучма, Cтратегикос Онаcандра и Стратегикон Маврикийа: опыт сравнителнй характеристики, [in:] idem, Военная организация византийской империи, Санкт-Петербург 2001, p. 139–208; П.В. Шувалов, Урбикий и “Стратегикон” Псевдо-Маврикия, I, ВВ 61, 2002, p. 71–87; idem, op . cit ., II, BB 64, 2005, p. 34–60.
29 Mauricii Strategicon, I, 2, 19–22, 35–39, ed. et trans. G.T. Dennis, E. Gamillscheg, Wien 1981
(cetera: Strategikon) [= CFHB, 17]. Detailed analysis of heavy cavalry equipment contained in Strate-gikon is given by following authors: F. Aussaresses, L’armée byzantine à la fin du VIe siècle d’après le Stra-tegicon de l’empereur Maurice, Paris 1909, passim; E. Darkó, Influences Touraniennes sur l’évolution de l’art militaire des Grecs, des Romains et des Byzantins, B 12, 1937, p. 128–129; A. Pertusi, Ordinamenti militari, guerre in Occidente e teorie di guerra dei Bizantini (secc . VI–X), SSCISAM 15, 1967, p. 667–670; J.F.
Hal-don, Some Aspects of the Byzantine Military Technology from the Sixth to the Tenth Centuries, BMGS 1, 1975, p. 18–26; idem, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine Word 565–1204, London 1999, p. 129–130.
30 Strategikon, X, 1, 19–21; XII, B, 23. 31 Strategikon, I, 2, 10–12.
32 The etymological derivation of this term is uncertain. Probably is linked with Persian-Turkish
word džebe or Arabic term jubbah. Cf. E. Oldenburg, Die Kriegsverfassung der Westgoten .
Inaugural-Dis-sertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde genehmigt von der Philosophischen Fakultät der Friedrich Wilhelms Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 1909, p. 43; A.D.H. Bivar, op . cit ., p. 288; T.G. Kolias, Zába, Zabareion, Zabareiótes, JÖB 29, 1980, p. 27–35; idem, Byzantinische Waffen: ein Beitrag zur byzantinischen Waffen-kunde von dem Anfängen bis zur lateinischen Eroberung, Wien 1988, p. 37–40; R. MuÑoz, El éjercito visi-godo: desde sus origenes a la batalla de Guadalete, Madrid 2003, p. 27; A. Nefedkin, Armour of the Goths in the 3rd–7th Centuries A .D ., FAH 19, 2006, p. 57; P.Ł. Grotowski, Arms and Armour of the Warrior Saints . Tradition and Innovation in Byzantine Iconography (843–1261), Leiden–Boston 2010, p. 126, 158–159.
33 Strategikon, I, 2, 12–13. See also T.G. Kolias, Byzantinische Waffen . . ., p. 63; A. Pertusi, op . cit .,
p. 668.
34 Strategikon, I, 2, 18–21; 35–39; 46–49. See also W. Pohl, Die Awaren . Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa
with two stirrups (skálai), an innovation adopted from the Avars, who probably had carried it across from the eastern steppe and China35. The panoply was com-pleted by a cavalry sword (spathíon) and a bow (toxárion), probably of a Hunnic origin36. Horses belonging to the highest commanders (archóntes) and elite sol-diers (epílektoi), who fought in the first rank, were protected at the front by felt or iron coverings37.
It should be observed that beside the heavy-armoured cavalry, units of mounted archers (hippotoxótai) also existed in the Byzantine army. According to Procopius the best mounted archers wore breast plates, helmets and small circu-lar shields attached to the left shoulder (very interesting feature found in Persian art). Their horses were unarmoured, since the cavalry described by Procopius functioned both as shock troops and highly mobile and effective mounted arch-ers38. What is significant is that Procopius refers heavy-armoured cavalryman as
tethōrakisménos, not as katáfraktos or klibanários, which is linked with the tradition
of classicizing historiography39. In other sources the term thōrakofóros as a synony-mous of heavy-armoured horseman is also applied40.
35 Strategikon, I, 2, 41–42; II 9, 22–28. On stirrups and its introduction see: A.D.H. Bivar, The
Stir-rup and its Origin, OAr 1, 1955, p. 61–65; M.A. Littauer, Early StirStir-rups, An 55, 1981, p. 99–105;
S. Szádeczky-Kardoss, Der awarisch-türkische Einfluss auf die byzantinische Kriegskunst um 600
(An-merkungen zum Strategikon des Maurikios), [in:] Turkic-Bulgarian-Hungarian Relations (VIth–XIth Centuries),
ed. G. Káldy-Nagy, Budapest 1981, p. 66–69 [= Studia Turco-Hungarica, 5]; J. Werner, Ein
byzan-tinischer Steigbügel aus Caričin Grad, [in:] Caričin Grad I . Les basiliques B et J de Caričin Grad . Quatre objets remarquables de Caričin Grad . Le trésor de Hajdučka Vodenica . Préface de Charles Pietri et Georges Vallet,
ed. N. Duval, V. Popović, Rome 1984, p. 147–155; A.E. Dien, The Stirrup and Its Effect on Chinese
Military History, AOr 16, 1986, p. 33–56; В.П. Никоноров, Квопросу о роли стремян в развитии военного дела, [in:] Степи Евразии в древности и Средневековье . Материалы международной науч-ной конференции, посвященнауч-ной 100-летию со дня рождения M . Гразнова, ed. М.Б. Пиотровский et
al., vol. II, Санкт-Петербург 2003, p. 263–267; F. Curta, The Earliest Avar Age Stirrups or the Stirrups
Controversy Revisited, [in:] The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans . East Central and Eastern Europa in the Middle Ages 450–1450, ed. idem, R. Kovalev, Leiden 2008, p. 297–327;
P.Ł. Grotowski, op . cit., p. 379–383.
36 Strategikon, I, 2, 16–17 and 20. On Byzantine swords and its typology see A. Bruhn-Hoffmeyer,
Military Equipment in the Byzantine Manuscript of Scylitzes in Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid, Granada 1966,
p. 91–110; M. Aleksić, Some Typological Features of Byzantine Spatha, ЗРВИ 47, 2010, p. 121–136; P.Ł. Grotowski, op . cit ., p. 342–357; V. Yotov, A New Byzantine Type of Sword 7th–11th Century, [in:] Ниш и Византиja . Девети научни скуп Ниш, 3–5 Jyн 2010, ed. М. Ракоциjа, Ниш 2011, p. 113–124;
G. Amatuccio, Peri toxeias . L’Arco da Guerra nel Mondo Bizantino e Tardo-Antico, Bologna 1996, passim.
37 Strategikon, I, 2, 35–39.
38 Procopius of Caesarea, The Persian War, I, 1, 8–16, [in:] History of the Wars, trans. H.B. Dewing,
vol. I, London 1953 (cetera: Procopius); A.D.H. Bivar, Cavalry Equipment and Tactics . . ., plates 23, 28, 30; J.F. Haldon, Some Aspects..., p. 18; П.В. Шувалов, Секрет Армии Юстинана: Восточноримская Армиа в 491–641 гг ., Санкт-Петербург 2006, p. 171–186.
39 For tethōrakisménoscf. e.g. Procopius, I, 1, 13; IV, 26, 1.
40 On the term thōrakofóros/thōrakofóroi see Ph. Rance, The Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus
It seems to me, that Avar influence on deployment of horse armour in Byzan-tium is misleading by modern historiography41. As it mentioned above, Maurice draw attention to the fact, that
the horses, especially those of the high commanders and the other elite cavalrymen, in particular those in the front ranks of the battle array, should have protective pieces of iron armor about their heads and breast plates of iron or felt, or else breast and neck coverings such as the Avars use42.
The opinion based on the Maurice’ description that the Avar horsemen were mainly responsible for the introduction of lamellar horse coverings into Byzan-tine army, is shared by J. Haldon43. It seems to me that this thesis is not convinc-ing. It must be noted, that the horse armour of the Avar heavy cavalry is attested only in the written sources. At any rate, archeological and pictorial evidences cannot corroborate its deployment44. This opinion concerning especially the iron horse armour of which not a single example has so far been found in the archae-ological material45. What is more, the archeological material strongly suggests that armour was rarely used by the Avar warriors. Probably it belonged to the noble and well-to-do nomads or tribal elite. Avar’s cemeteries are characterized by the relatively high number of close-combat weapons and archery equipment46. In this context, Maurice’ account concerning the Avar’s horse armour must be treated with great care. It must be stressed that horse armour had been used in the Greco-Roman world at least since the days of Xenophon, and continued to be used by some elite units of the Byzantine army. Probably, the Avar horse equipment that is described by the author of Strategikon is a pastiche of Byzantine equestrian armour that was current in use from the time of the ancient catafracti and clibanarii. As we have seen, their horse armour was strongly linked with the Persian influences and it had nothing to do with the Avar military equipment47.
41 W. Pohl, op . cit ., p. 171–172. 42 Strategikon, I, 2, 35–39.
43 J.F. Haldon, Some Aspects . . ., p. 22.
44 K. Nagy, Notes on the Arms of the Avar Heavy Cavalry, AO.ASH 58, 2005, p. 139.
45 F. Daim, Avars and Avar Archaeology . An Introduction, [in:] Regna et Gentes . The Relationship Between
Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, ed. H.W.
Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl, S. Kashke, Leiden 2003, p. 465.
46 Ibidem, p. 478–479; B. Bachrach, A Picture of Avar-Frankish Warfare from a Carolingian Psalter of the
Early Ninth Century in Light of the Strategicon, AEMA 4, 1986, p. 20; G. Csiky, Armament and Society in the Mirror of the Avar Archaeology . The Transdanubia-Phenomenon Revisited, [in:] Studia Universitatis Cib-iniensis . Series Historica VIII . Supplementum VIII . Proceedings of the First International Conference Interethnic Relations in Transylvania . Militaria Mediaevalia in Central and South Eastern Europe, Sibiu, October 14th–17th, 2010, ed. I.M. Tiplic, Sibiu 2011, p. 23.
47 See В.П. Никоноров, Развитие конского защитного снаряжения античной эпохи, КСИА 184,
1985, p. 30–35; А.К. Нефедкин, Защитное вооружение колесничных коней на Ближнем Востоке в ахеменидский и эллинистический периоды, [in:] Античный мир . Проблемы истории и культуры . Сборник научных статей к 65-летию со дня рождения проф . Э .Д . Фролова, ed. И.Я. Фроянов,
Санкт-What is more, the quality of the state manufactured armour and other military equipment surpassed those of most of Byzantium foes48. Manufacturing of high quality arms and armour required advanced technologies and deployment of various materials. As opposed to sedentary societies, the mobile communities of Asian nomads could only support some blacksmiths, not a specialized arms in-dustry. So the nomads had either to import equipment which, if the large poten-tial clientele were to be served, meant importing from the major arm-producing states like Byzantium, China and Persia, or make what they could for themselves through the imitation of selected foreign patterns49. Similar procedures were deployed by the Avars50. We have very interesting account that in 562 a small group of Avars at Constantinople was able to purchase some elements of Byzan-tine armour51. But it is difficult to say if among this items was horse armour and
Петербург 1998, p. 249–260, P. Bernard, Campagne de fouilles 1978 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan), CRAI 124, 1980, p. 452–457, plate 12; M.A. Littauer, V. Karageorghis, Note on Prometopidia, [in:] Selected
Writings on Chariots, Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, ed. P. Raulwing, Leiden 2002, p. 525–530;
M.A. Littauer, J.H. Crouwel, Ancient Iranian Horse Helmets? [in:] Selected Writings . . ., p. 534–545; В.П. Никоноров, К вопросу о парфянском наследии..., p. 161.
48 Armour and other military equipment for heavy cavalry in Late Roman Empire was produced in
fabricae clibanariae – state workshops established by emperor Diocletian in Daphne (Antioch) and
Nicomedia. Cf. V.P. Nikonorov, Cataphracti, Cataphractarii, Clibanarii…, p. 132; R. MacMullen,
In-scription of Armor and the Supply of Arms in the Roman Empire, AJA 64, 1960, p. 31. On Late Roman/
Byzantine state factories, distribution of arms and metallurgy see S. James, The Fabricae: State Arms
Factories of the Later Roman Empire, [in:] Military Equipment and The Identity of Roman Soldiers: Proceed-ings of the Fourth Roman Equipment Military Conference, ed. J.C. Coulston, Oxford 1988, p. 257–331;
D. Woods, The Ownership and Disposal of Military Equipment in the Late Roman Army, JRMES 4, 1993, p. 55–65; Les listes de préséance de IXe et Xe siècle, ed. N. Oikonomides, Paris 1972, p. 317; 338; P.Ł.
Grotowski, op . cit., p. 19–26; T. G. Kolias, Zába…, p. 31–34; J.F. Haldon, The Organization and
Sup-port of an Expeditionary Force: Manpower and Logistics in the Middle Byzantine Period, [in:] Byzantium at War (9th–12th Century), ed. K. Tsinakes, Athens 1997, p. 119, 142–143; M.K. Papathanassiou, Metal-lurgy and Metalworking Techniques, [in:] The Economic History of Byzantium . From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. A.E. Laiou, vol. I, Washington 2002, p. 121–127.
49 J.M. Smith, The Nomads’ Armament: Home-Made Weaponry, [in:] The Nomads Armament, Religion,
Customary Law and Nomadic Technology . Papers presented at the Central and Inner Asian Seminar University of Toronto, 1 May 1998 and 23 April 1999, ed. M. Gervers, W. Schlepp, Toronto 2000, p. 53–54. See also
U. Jäger, Sogdian or Sasanian Types of Armament in Vendeltime Sweden? A Question to be Asked Once Again, [in:] Military Archaeology: Weaponry and Warfare in the Historical and Social Perspective . Materials of the
International Conference 2–5 September 1998, ed. G.V. Vilnibahov et al., Saint Petersburg 1998, p. 309.
50 On Avar metallurgy as synthesis of different technics and foreign influences (especially from
Byz-antium) see O. Heinrich–Tamaska, Avar-Age Metalworking Technologies in the Carpathian Basin (6th to 8th Century), [in:] The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans . East Central and Eastern Europa in the Middle Ages 450–1450, ed. F. Curta, R. Kovalev, Leiden 2008, p. 237–263.
On the role of Avars in spreading of Eastern forms of armament in Europe see O. Gamber, Chinese
Warriors and Avars, [in:] Military Archaeology: Weaponry and Warfare . . ., p. 186–187; W. Świętosławski, Rola Awarów w rozpowszechnieniu w Europie azjatyckich form uzbrojenia, AUL.FA 23, 2001, p. 75–85.
51 Menander Protector, Excerpta de legationibus gentium ad Romanos, fr. 4, [in:] Excerpta historica
could the information concerning this event had served as the basis for Maurice description52.
Nevertheless, one should observe, that the heavy and medium cavalry equip-ment shows marked steppe influence, as well as an influence of the Sasanian cav-alry tactics and panoply. The early-seventh century bas-relief in Persia at Taq-i-Bustan shows king Khosrow II (590–628) in armour remarkably similar to that ascribed to the ancient catafracti and clibanarii and heavy cavalrymen by the
Strate-gikon. The king’s horse is covered by what appears to be a lamellar armour made
from metal or leather elements53. We can find similarly armoured horsemen in Persian art54. According to this evidence, a conclusion seems authorized, that the construction, material and use of the individual elements of weapons and armour used by the Byzantine heavy-armoured horsemen of the 6th and 7th centuries com-pared to those of the ancient catafracti and clibanarii proves that the Byzantine heavy-armoured cavalry was a continuation of the latter, not necessarily in respect of the formation identity or tactics, but more so in respect of the arms used and of other elements of the equipment. Although the terms catafracti and clibanarii were not used at that time, the heavy armoured cavalry still existed.
I suppose, that disappearance of these terms from the sources was connected with great changes that took place in military technology and ethnic character of the Byzantine army55. Through various intermediary peoples who inhabited or passed through the steppe regions north of the Danube and the Black Sea the Byz-antine Empire maintained regular contacts with more distant societies, as a result of which elements of military panoply or practices originating from Central Asia
52 B. Bachrach, A Picture of Avar-Frankish Warfare…, p. 20–21.
53 M. Michalak, op . cit., p. 82–83; K. Tanabe, An Identification of the Chain-Armoured Equestrian
Im-age at the Larger Grotto Taq-i Bustan, O 17, 1981, p. 105–118; M. Mode, Art and Ideology at Taq-i Bustan: The Armoured Equestrian, [in:] Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer . The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic times to the Early Middle Ages, ed. idem, J. Tubach, Wiesbaden 2006,
p. 393‒415. On Late Sasanianhorse armour and weapon see remarks in B.Ю. Bдовин, B.П. Н ико-норов, Фрагменты панцирного доспеха позднесасанидского времени из Тоголок-депе, НСо 4, 1991,
p. 77–79; D.T. Potts, Late Sassanian Armament from Southern Arabia, [in:] Electrum . Studies in Ancient
History, ed. E. Dąbrowa, vol. I, Cracow 1997, p. 127–137; idem, A Sasanian Lead Horse from Northeast-ern Arabia, IA 28, 1993, p. 193–199; P. Skupniewicz, Shafted Weapons of Sasanian Hunting Iconography,
FAH 22, 2009, p. 49–64.
54 M. Michalak, op . cit., p. 82.
55 See J. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians . An Administrative, Institutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion
and Tagmata, c . 580–900, Bonn 1984, p. 139–141; idem, Administrative Continuities and Structural Trans-formations in East Roman Military Organization c . 580–640, [in:] idem, State, Army and Society in Byzan-tium . Approaches to Military, Social and Administrative History, 6th–12th Centuries, Aldershot 1995, p. 9–11;
O. Schmitt, Untersuchungen zur Organization und zur militärischen Stärke oströmischer Herrschaft im
Vor-derem Orient zwischen 628–633, BZ 94, 2001, p. 216–228; R. Scharf, Foederati . Von der völkerrechtlichen Kategorie zur byzantinischen Truppengatung, Wien 2001, p. 100–126; F.R. Trombley, Military Cadres and Battle During the Reign of Heraclius, [in:] The Reign of Heraclius (610–641) . Crisis and Confrontation, ed.
or even from further East permeated into the Balkans, Asia Minor and Middle East56. For example, the stirrups were adopted from the Avars, and the appearance of the single-edged sabre in the 8th or 9th century can be connected with the Khaz-ars or MagyKhaz-ars57. There is no need to argue that a large amount of archaeological material and a number of descriptions of the Byzantine soldiers in various military treatises confirm that58. Simultaneously with the development of the military tech-nology a great deal of new termitech-nology of Persian, Germanic and Eastern origin applying to military equipment and tactics appears in the Greek language. For example, such loanwords as bándon, foúlkon, zába, etc. are attested59. As we have seen, the term catafracti was not used at this time however. Probably, it could have been simply forgotten or replaced by other terms connected with the new military technology. For example, the zabátos as a significant, new term used to describe heavy armoured horseman or kaballários from the Latin caballarius, one of several words used in Byzantine written sources to designate the horseman generally. We must also remember that Byzantine chroniclers and writers were not interested in technical aspects concerning the military organization and equipment. Probably they saw no necessity to provide his readers with such details. Moreover, another solution to the question seems to be possible. Throughout the period from the 6th century heavy-armoured cavalry supported by mounted archers played the role of a main striking force60. Thus, there was no need to emphasize its elitist character, as was the case in antiquity.
56 D. Nicolle, No Way Overland? Evidence for Byzantine Arms and Armour on the 10th–11th Century Tau-rus Frontier, [in:] idem, Warriors and their Weapons around the Time of The CTau-rusades . Relationships be-tween Byzantium, the West and the Islamic World, Aldershot 2002, p. 133; Г.В. Кубарев, Влияние военного искусства и комплекса вооружения центральноазиатских кочевников в Европе (в свете переселения авар и создания Первого Тюркского каганата), [in:] Роль номадов . . ., p. 86–110; P. Schreiner, Zur Ausrüstung des Kriegers in Byzanz, dem Kiever Russland und Nordeuropa nach bildlichen und literarischen Quellen, [in:] Les Pays du Nord et Byzance (Scandinavie et Byzance) . Actes du colloque nordique et internatio-nal de byzantinologie tenu à Upsal 20–22 Avril 1979, ed. R.W. Zeitler, Uppsala 1981, p. 215–236.
57 J. Haldon, Some Aspects . . ., p. 31–32; V. Iotov, A Note on the Hungarian Sabres of Medieval Bulgaria,
[in:] The Other Europe . . ., p. 327–339.
58 J.-P. Sodini, La contribution de l’archéologie à la connaissance du monde byzantin (IVe–VIIe siècles),
DOP 47, 1993, p. 168–169; G. Dagron, Ceux d’en face: les peoples étrangers dans les traités militaires
byzantins, TM 10, 1987, p. 210; J. Drauschke, Zur Herkunft und Vermittlung „byzantinischer Importe“ der Merowingerzeit in Nordwesteuropa, [in:] Zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter . Archäologie des 4 . bis 7 . Jahrhunderts im Westen, ed. S. Brather, Berlin–New York 2008, p. 367, 372, 376–383.
59 T.G. Kolias, Tradition und Erneuerung im frühbyzantinischen Reich am Beispiel der militärischen Sprache
und Terminologie, [in:] L’Armée Romain et les barbares du IIIe ou VIIe s ., ed. F. Vallet, M. Kazanski,
Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1993, p. 39–44; Ph. Rance, The Fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: The
Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics?, GRBS 44, 2004, p. 305–308; H. Kahane, R. Kahane, The Western Impact on Byzantium: The Linguistic Evidence, DOP 36, 1982, p. 130; P. Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489–554, Cambridge 1997, p. 102–108.
60 On the rise of both types of cavalry in the period see I. Syvänne, The Age of Hippotoxotai . Art of War in
However, in the 10th century, in the contemporary military treatises and other written sources, there appeared once again the term katáfraktoi (katáfraktoi
kaval-lárioi) as a definition of heavy-armoured elitist cavalry units. In my opinion, the
appearance of this term in the 10th century might be linked with a general revival of ancient learning and culture at that time. In modern historiography this cultural process is described as the so called “Macedonian renaissance” characterized also by a great development of military science in the Byzantine Empire. Initiated by the emperor Leo VI (886–912) and continued by his son Constantine VII and his successors, a revival of military science, connected obviously with the great age of Byzantine conquest, resulted in a large corpus of classical and contemporary manuals discussing the art of war in its many dimensions61. In the specialist litera-ture on the subject, there is a widespread opinion that the major part of military treatises of the epoch mirrors mostly the retrospective character of the work of their compilers. E. McGeer emphasizes that almost all the Byzantine military writ-ers lacked direct experience of war, so their knowledge, drawn from the authorities of the past, was theoretical rather than practical and literary rather than techni-cal62. Furthermore, concerning our topic, he argues that there was no continuous tradition of heavy cavalry in Byzantium and there were barely periodic attempts to revive this type of riders at different times, and against different enemies63. He be-lieves, as well as some other scholars, that appearance of heavy armoured
katáfrak-toi in Byzantium was linked with emperor Nikephoros Phocas’ military reforms64. I think, this thesis is very debatable. I try to show, that the Byzantine katáfraktoi were not only modeled on their ancient predecessors, but they even constituted a full continuation of the ancient formation. They applied the same tactical pro-cedures and were equipped with similar armour as their ancient forerunners. Ac-cording to this evidence we could draw the conclusion, that the “Macedonian ren-aissance” had also practical influence on the Byzantine warfare in the 10th century.
The Crucial Development of Heavy Cavalry under Herakleios and His Usage of Steppe Nomad Tactics, Hir 4,
2005/2006, p. 28–41.
61 A. Dain, La tradition des stratègistes byzantins, B 20, 1950, p. 315–316, J. Irigoin, Survie et renouveau
de la littérature antique à Constantinople (IXe siècle), CCM 5, 1962, p. 287–302; A. Dain, Les stratégistes byzantins, TM 2, 1967, p. 317–392; P. Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin . Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle, Paris 1971, p. 267–301; H. Hunger, Die Hoch-sprachliche Profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. I, München 1978, p. 323–340; A. Cutler, A. Kazhdan, Continuity and Discontinuity in Byzantine Culture, B 52, 1982, p. 429–478; G. Dagron, H. Mihăescu, Commentaire, [in:] Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione bellica) de l’empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963–969),
ed. et trans. iidem, Paris 1986, p. 139–145, 153–160; В. Кучма, Bизантийские военные mрактаты VI–X вв . как исторические источники, [in:] idem, Военная организация . . ., p. 43–54.
62 E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century, Washington 2008,
p. 171.
63 Ibidem, p. 317–318.
64 A. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World, London 1973, p. 311–313; H.J. Kuhn, Die
Besides the katáfraktoi, in Byzantine army of that time new formations described by ancient names like athánatoi (‘immortals’), peltàstai (light infantry) and hoplítai (heavy-armoured infantry) were also present65. Its appearance was strongly con-nected with the revival of ancient patterns which took place in 10th century. In this context, the Byzantine military writers employed the word katáfraktoi because this was the term favored by the late Hellenistic and Roman military literature. Since it existed in antiquity, this term was used by the authors of the tenth-century military treaties to denote a specific class of heavy cavalry66.
For the first time since the late antiquity the term katáfraktoi appears in the anonymous treatise on strategy called Perì strategías or the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister perhaps written no in the 6th century (a sixth-century date proposed by G.T. Dennis is no longer tenable) but rather in the 9th century or even later67. According to this source, the heavy armoured katáfraktoi were placed on the either side of solid infantry formation68. What is more, we can find detailed description of arms and armour of heavy armoured horsemen. They should be equipped with iron armour for their heads, breasts and necks. Theirs horses should be covered (katafrássein) in the same manner. Author recommends, that the “soles” of the horses’ hooves should also be likewise protected with iron plates (petála) so that they will not easily be injured by caltrops (tribóloi) and other devices69. The term katáfraktoi is also present in the tactical constitutions of the emperor Leo VI when he describes heavy – armoured cavalry of the ancient period as well as units contemporary to him70. The author reports that the chief element which distinguished the units of katáfraktoi from other types of cavalry (mè katáfraktoi) is the complete armour of both horse and warrior71. Unfortunately, his
descrip-65 R. D’Amato, Gli Athanatoi, guardia del corpo dell’imperatore Giovanni Tzimiskès, Porph 4, 2007,
p. 54‒56; E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth . . ., p. 203–206. The peltàstai and hoplítai are described in: Leonis VI Tactica, V, 2; VI, 29, 32, ed. et trans. G.T. Dennis, Washington 2010 (cetera: Leo VI) [= CFHB, 49]; Sylloge Tacticorum quae olim Inedita Leonis Tactica dicebatur, XXXVIII; XXX, 4; XXXVIII, 6, ed. A. Dain, Paris 1938 (cetera: Sylloge Tacticorum). On peltasts in antiquity see analysis given by J.P.G. Brest, Thracian Peltasts and Their Influence on Greek Warfare, Groningen 1969.
66 Ph. Rance, The Date . . ., p. 715–716.
67 G.T. Dennis, The Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy . Introduction, [in:] Tres Tractatus Byzantini
De Re Militari, ed. and trans. idem, Washington 2008, p. 1–7 [= CFHB, 25]; F. Lammert, Die älteste erhaltene Schrift über Seetaktik und ihre Beziehung zum Anonymus Byzantinus des sechsten Jahrhunderts zu Vegetius und zu Aineias’ Strategika, K 33, 1940, p. 271–288. On the contrary opinion see: B. Baldwin, On the Date of the Anonymous Peri Strategikes, BZ 81, 1988, p. 290–293; A.D. Lee, J. Shepard, A Double Life: Placing the Peri Presbeon, Bsl 52, 1991, p. 15–39; C. Zuckerman, The Compendium of Syrianus Ma-gister, JÖB 40, 1990, p. 209–224; S. Cosentino, The Syrianos’s Strategikon: a Ninth Century Source? Bi 2,
2000, p. 248–261; Ph. Rance, The Date . . ., p. 719–737.
68 Περὶ στρατηγίας, XXV, 18–23, [in:] Tres Tractatus Byzantini . . ., (cetera: Περὶ στρατηγίας). 69 Περὶ στρατηγίας, XVII, 12–19. On caltrops see Leo VI, V, 4–5.
70 Leo VI, VI, 25–27. See also Ad Leonis Augusti Tactica Appendix, XXXIII, XXXIX, [in:] PG, vol. CVII,
ed. et trans. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1863, col. 1097–1098, 1105–1106.
tion concerns only the military equipment which applied to this heavy-armoured horsemen, not to the tactical procedures. Probably the lack of such information was linked with the emperor’s scanty military experience72. Nevertheless, we pos-sess an excellent description of the tactics and equipment of such heavy-armoured horsemen. Detailed description of the ancient and Byzantine cataphracts’ equip-ment contains the anonymous military manual knowing as Sylloge Tacticorum73. The Byzantine katáfraktoi are also described by the emperor Nicephorus Phocas and by a famous military commander the time, Nicephorus Uranos. We must draw attention to the fact, that both were experienced military leaders, which means, that their descriptions are very reliable74. According to their accounts the Byzan-tine katáfraktoi were the best equipped soldiers in the army. Their compact hel-mets were fitted with a complete guards of mail or textile two or three layers thick, pierced only with eye holes75. This was a style long knowing in the East76. The torso was protected by a klibánion. This term demands a careful attention. It may
72 We must draw attention to the fact that the practical value of Leo’s work is difficult to gauge. On
this see A. Vogt, La Jeunesse de Léon VI le Sage, RH 174, 1934, p. 408; P. Karlin-Hayter, When Military
Affairs Were in Leo’s Hands: A Note on Foreign Policy (886–912), T 23, 1967, p. 20. But on the other hand
it must be stressed that he was interested in military matters. See S. Tougher, The Imperial
Thought-World of Leo VI: The Non Campaign Emperor of the Ninth Century, [in:] Byzantium in the Ninth Century . Dead or Alive? Papers from the Thirtieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1996, ed.
L. Brubaker, London 1998, p. 51–63. On the date and composition of the treatise see K.E. Zacha-riä von Lingenthal, Zum Militärgesetz des Leo, BZ 2, 1893, p. 606–608; G. Moravcsik, La Tactique de
Léon VI le Sage comme source historique hongroise, AH.ASH 1, 1952, p. 161–184; S. Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI (886–912) . Politics and People, Leiden–New York–Köln 1997, p. 166–172. There is no need
to argue that the core of the tactical constitution is a reprise of Maurice and ancient sources. Leo’s alterations suggest that he did not fully understand aspects of Maurice’s text especially in those places were the tactics of different kinds of units are described, what indicates that author’s theoretical and practical military knowledge was scanty. On this see P. Rance, The Fulcum…, p. 315–321.
73 Sylloge Tacticorum, XXXI, 1–3; XXXIII, 1; XXXIX, 1–6; XLVI, 6–7. On the authorship of the Sylloge
Tacticorum see E. McGeer, Sylloge Tacticorum, [in:] ODB, vol. III, p. 1980.
74 R. Vári, Die Praecepta Nicephori, BZ 30, 1929/1930, p. 49–53; H. Mihăescu, Pour une nouvelle édition
du traité Praecepta militaria du Xe siècle, RSBS 2, 1982, p. 315–322; E. McGeer, Tradition and Reality in the Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos, DOP 45, 1991, p. 129–140; F. Trombley, Taktika Nikephorou tou Ouranou and Military Encyclopaedism, [in:] Pre-modern Encyclopaedic Texts . Proceedings of the Second COMERS Con-gress, Groningen, 1–4 July 1996, ed. P. Binkley, Leiden 1997, p. 261–274; E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth . . ., p. 80–81, 171–196.
75 Nicephori Praecepta Militaria ex codice Mosquensi, 11, 13–15, ed. Ю.А. Кулаковский, ЗИАН.ИФО
8.9, 1908 (cetera: Praecepta Militaria); ’Εκ τῶν τακτικῶν Νικηφόρου τοῦ Οὐρανοῦ, 60, 4, [in:] E. McG-eer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth . . ., (cetera: Nicephorus Uranos); Sylloge Tacticorum, XXXIX, 3. See also J. Haldon, Some Aspects..., p. 37; T.G. Kolias, Byzantinische Waffen . . ., p. 63, 76–77; P.Ł. Grotowski,
op . cit., p. 158–159.
76 H.R. Robinson, Oriental Armour, London 1967, p. 21–22; A.D.H. Bivar, op . cit., p. 290, plate 30;
D.G. Alexander, Two Aspects of Islamic Arms and Armor, BMMA 18, 1984, p. 97–104; J. Diethart, P. Dintsis, op . cit., p. 72–73, plate 4, 5 and 7; R. D’Amato, op . cit ., p. 60; A. Zouache, L’armement entre
stem from the Persian griwbān (‘neck armour’ or ‘hauberk’; literally ‘something that connects a helmet with the rest of the armour’). The appearance of this word in antiquity was linked with the rise of clibanarii units. Probably in the 3rd century this foreign term was adopted into everyday soldiers speech and became latinised. In Roman sources the loanword was employed to designate the heavy-armoured horseman, the clibanarius77. But on the other hand the hypothesis on Greek and Latin origin of this term not be excluded. This term being derived from Latin word
clibanum (Gr. klíbanos) not in the sense as ‘oven’ but as something like ‘a fuller
ar-mour suit’. From this term derive such words as clibanarii/ klibanárioi, klibánion,
kli-banátos (‘covered in armour’)78. We can observe that the etymology of klibánion was straightforwardly linked with the ancient clibanarii/klibanárioi. In the Byzantine military manuals from the 10th century the klibánion might refer to as little as the breast and back, but could also mean a full armour consisting of breast and back, shoulder guards, sleeves and skirt or even a horse armour79. This is confirmed by Nicephorus Phokas who stipulates, that the klibánia of the katáfraktoi should have sleeves and skirt coverings (kremásmata)80. This term has been interpreted as skirt-like coverings which protected the rider from the waist to the knee81. This is echoed by Nicephorus Uranos in his Tactica82. The klibánion referred to anything made of lamellar, such as horse armour. In this period Byzantine craftsmen had introduced a technological innovation in lamellar construction83. In the generic lamellar armour known from Persia, China and other civilizations, the plates over-lap and are tied together horizontally before the rows are assembled vertically84.
77 O. Fiebiger, Clibanarii, RE IV, 1, 1899, p. 22; F. Rundgren, Über einige iranische Lehnwörter im
lateinischen und griechischen, OSu 6, 1957, p. 49–51; M. Michalak, op . cit., p. 76–77; A.D.H. Bivar, op . cit., p. 277–278, 291; A. Tafazzoli, A List of Terms for Weapons and Armour in Western Middle Iranian Dedicated to Professor A .D .H . Bivar, SRAA 3, 1993/1994, p. 187–188; M.M. Khorasani, Linguistic Terms Describing Different Types of Armor in Persian Manuscripts, Gla 30, 2011, p. 160.
78 V.P. Nikonorov, Cataphracti, Cataphractarii, Clibanarii…, p. 132; Lexicon zur Byzantinische Gräzität,
ed. E. Trapp, vol. I, p. 840. We can observe that in the paraphrase of the Strategikon of emperor Mau-rice, which constituted a part of the so-called Codex Ambrosianus Graecus prepared using materials from the library of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus around 959, the term zabátos was replaced by the word klibanátos. This change might be connected with great revival of the ancient military sci-ence. See B. Leoni, La Parafrasi Ambrosiana dello Strategicon di Maurizio, XIIb, 23, 16, Milano 1997.
79 Leo VI, VI, 4; Sylloge Tacticorum, XXXIX, 1; Praecepta Militaria, 11, 7, 16–22; Nicephorus Uranos,
60, 4–5. See also T.G. Kolias, Byzantinische Waffen . . ., p. 44–49; J. Haldon, Some Aspects..., p. 30–35; P.Ł. Grotowski, op . cit ., p. 129.
80 Praecepta Militaria, 11, 8–9.
81 T. Dawson, Kremásmata, Kabádion, Klibánion: Some Aspects of Middle Byzantine Military Equipment
Reconsidered, BMGS 22, 1998, p. 42–43; E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth . . ., p. 215–216.
82 Nicephorus Uranos, 60, 4.
83 T. Dawson, Suntagma Hoplon: The Equipment of Regular Byzantine Troops c . 950 to c . 1204, [in:]
A Com-panion to Medieval Arms and Armour, ed. D. Nicolle, Suffolk 2002, p. 84–85.
84 On lamellar armour and its history see: B. Thordeman, P. Nörlund, B.E. Ingelmark,
